A new investigation into the activities of Google, Meta and other technology companies has intensified scrutiny of EU plans to revise data-protection legislation, placing Ireland and Germany at the centre of a dispute over corporate influence and European digital sovereignty.

European technology policy has become the focus of a dispute over corporate lobbying after researchers documented extensive contacts between major technology companies and political decision-makers during negotiations to revise EU data-protection rules.

An investigation published on 28 October by Corporate Europe Observatory and the German transparency organisation LobbyControl alleges that leading technology companies mounted a coordinated campaign to influence European governments and legislators.

The findings come one week after EU member states agreed a negotiating position on the Digital Omnibus, a legislative package intended to simplify aspects of European data-protection, privacy and cybersecurity regulation.

The campaigners argue that the proposed changes risk weakening existing safeguards in order to accommodate the commercial requirements of artificial intelligence developers.

Ireland, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, has rejected suggestions that its handling of the legislation was improperly influenced by technology companies.

The dispute exposes a fundamental disagreement over the balance between commercial innovation and the protection of personal information.

The scale of the lobbying campaign

According to LobbyControl’s investigation, non-European technology companies recorded 103 meetings with representatives of Germany’s federal government between May 2025 and September 2026.

Google accounted for 28 meetings, Microsoft 18, Amazon 16 and OpenAI 11.

Germany’s Digital Minister, Karsten Wildberger, participated in 18 meetings with representatives of major technology companies, the researchers reported.

In Ireland, the organisations identified extensive engagement involving Meta, Google and politicians ahead of the country’s assumption of the EU Council presidency in July.

Their findings indicate that Meta engaged with 41 Irish parliamentarians over the Digital Omnibus, while Google recorded 30 meetings.

The researchers also identified 655 lobbying meetings concerning the legislation involving members of the European Parliament.

According to their analysis, approximately 83 per cent represented business interests, compared with 11 per cent involving civil society organisations or trade unions.

These figures demonstrate the intensity of corporate engagement, although the existence of lobbying meetings does not, by itself, establish that particular legislative provisions were adopted because of that activity.

Why the Digital Omnibus matters

The legislative package forms part of a broader European Commission initiative to reduce administrative burdens and improve competitiveness.

Its provisions address several areas of digital regulation, including the General Data Protection Regulation, commonly known as GDPR.

The proposals seek to simplify compliance obligations, clarify the treatment of personal information and revise rules governing certain forms of data processing.

One particularly contentious issue concerns the use of personal data in developing and operating artificial intelligence systems.

AI developers require large quantities of information to train and improve their models. However, the collection and processing of personal information remain subject to European legal safeguards.

Technology companies have argued that regulatory complexity can discourage investment and make it more difficult for European businesses to compete internationally.

Privacy campaigners maintain that simplifying regulatory procedures must not become a mechanism for reducing substantive protections.

The disagreement concerns not merely administrative paperwork but the legal circumstances under which companies may process information relating to identifiable individuals.

Ireland rejects allegations of improper influence

Ireland occupies a particularly sensitive position in the debate.

The country hosts major European operations of several American technology companies, including Google and Meta, and has substantial economic interests in the digital sector.

At the same time, its presidency of the EU Council requires it to coordinate negotiations between member states.

According to RTÉ’s reporting on the investigation, the Irish government strongly rejected the allegation that it had weakened data safeguards in response to corporate pressure.

A presidency spokesperson emphasised that Ireland’s responsibility was to facilitate agreement between member states and that the negotiating mandate approved on 21 October enjoyed broad support.

The Council has presented the proposed changes as a means of reducing compliance costs while preserving established privacy protections.

In its official statement, the Council said its mandate retains the existing definition of personal data and introduces additional provisions governing pseudonymisation.

It also includes safeguards relating to sensitive information used for biometric verification and AI systems.

These details are significant because they demonstrate that the negotiating text contains protections alongside proposed simplifications.

Germany’s role in the negotiations

Germany has also emerged as an important participant in the controversy.

The investigation points to close contact between the German government and international technology companies during discussions about the future of European digital regulation.

Berlin has supported reducing administrative restrictions that it considers obstacles to innovation and the development of competitive AI technologies.

For Germany, the issue is connected to wider concerns about industrial competitiveness, investment and Europe’s dependence on foreign technology suppliers.

Yet an unresolved question remains.

Measures designed to assist European innovators may also benefit established American companies whose extensive computing infrastructure and data resources give them advantages over smaller competitors.

Consequently, easing restrictions does not necessarily guarantee a stronger European technology industry.

The European Parliament holds the next decision

The Council’s negotiating position does not make the Digital Omnibus law.

The European Parliament must establish its own position before negotiations between the institutions can determine the final legislation.

Parliamentarians will therefore have an opportunity to examine the treatment of personal data, the safeguards attached to AI development and the relationship between regulatory simplification and individual rights.

The lobbying investigation is likely to become part of that debate.

Its central political significance lies in the competing interpretations of European technological sovereignty.

For governments seeking investment, regulatory flexibility may provide an instrument for improving Europe’s international competitiveness.

For privacy organisations, the same flexibility could increase the influence of companies already dominant in global digital markets.

The outcome will help determine whether Europe’s future digital framework preserves the existing balance between commercial data use and individual protections, or establishes a different relationship between the two.

The United States has warned the European Union that proposed restrictions on American satellite operators could provoke commercial retaliation against European businesses, escalating a dispute over the future of satellite communications and Europe’s efforts to reduce its dependence on foreign technology.

US Ambassador to the EU Andrew Puzder has criticised plans under consideration in Brussels that would reserve parts of the radio spectrum for European operators, potentially restricting services provided by Elon Musk’s SpaceX and its Starlink satellite network.

According to details of Washington’s objections, the American administration believes the proposed arrangements would discriminate against US companies and undermine competition. Puzder has warned that European businesses could face substantial consequences if the restrictions proceed.

The disagreement comes as Brussels pursues a broader strategy intended to strengthen Europe’s technological independence in satellite communications, cloud computing and artificial intelligence. Washington has increasingly challenged European regulations that it considers detrimental to American technology companies.

A dispute over access to satellite frequencies

At the centre of the disagreement is the allocation of radio frequencies used by satellite communications systems. Access to suitable spectrum is essential for providing reliable services, particularly as operators deploy increasingly large constellations in low Earth orbit.

SpaceX has established a substantial commercial and technological advantage through Starlink, which operates thousands of satellites and provides broadband services to residential, commercial and government customers across numerous countries.

European operators argue that the expansion of American satellite networks could make it difficult for European competitors to secure sufficient spectrum and develop commercially viable services.

Washington takes a different position, warning that preferential treatment for European operators could restrict competition rather than strengthen it.

The precise legal form of the proposed EU restrictions, and whether they will proceed, remain unsettled. No final European prohibition on American satellite services has been announced.

Nevertheless, the dispute raises a question for Brussels: whether measures intended to protect European industrial capacity can be introduced without exposing European exporters and investors to American retaliation.

Europe’s satellite ambitions

The European Commission is investing heavily in IRIS², its secure satellite communications programme, which is intended to provide independent communications capabilities for governments, defence organisations and commercial customers.

Under arrangements confirmed in August, the programme’s principal constellation is planned to comprise 348 satellites operating in low and medium Earth orbit, with initial launches scheduled for 2029.

The system is designed to reduce Europe’s reliance on communications infrastructure controlled by companies or governments outside the EU, particularly during military emergencies, cyber incidents and interruptions to terrestrial networks.

The Commission’s technical programme envisages communications services supporting border management, crisis response, defence and other sensitive government activities.

However, IRIS² is not yet operational, and European commercial operators face significant competition from SpaceX.

Eutelsat, which operates the OneWeb satellite network, is among the European companies positioned to benefit from increased demand for alternatives to Starlink.

Its shares rose sharply on 14 October following reports of restrictions affecting Ukrainian access to certain Starlink services. The market reaction reflected renewed interest in European-controlled satellite communications.

OneWeb cannot simply replace Starlink across all applications. Differences in network architecture, terminal equipment and available capacity complicate any rapid transition.

Ukraine adds a security dimension

The dispute is particularly sensitive because Starlink has become an important part of Ukraine’s communications infrastructure during Russia’s invasion.

Ukrainian forces have relied on satellite connectivity for communications in areas where conventional telecommunications infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed.

The strategic consequences of relying on a commercial provider became more prominent following reports that access to certain Starlink capabilities had been restricted.

For European governments, the episode has reinforced concerns about whether defence communications should depend on technology controlled by a company subject to political and commercial pressures outside Europe.

Yet restricting American participation before European alternatives are fully available could produce its own operational difficulties.

The Commission must therefore distinguish between developing independent European capabilities and limiting access to services that governments, businesses and military organisations currently require.

Another transatlantic regulatory confrontation

The satellite dispute follows disagreements over European regulation of American digital companies, including competition enforcement and restrictions on online platforms.

As EU Today reported in May, the European Commission had already proposed reserving much of the future mobile satellite spectrum for European operators.

Washington’s opposition introduces a different dimension because spectrum allocation affects market access directly.

The American administration is also linking the dispute to broader commercial relations, raising the possibility that measures affecting satellite companies could produce consequences for unrelated European industries.

Brussels has not announced a final decision on the disputed spectrum arrangements, while the United States has not specified which retaliatory measures it would impose.

The immediate issue is therefore regulatory rather than an enacted trade restriction. Whether it develops into a wider confrontation will depend on the Commission’s final proposals and Washington’s willingness to pursue its warning through commercial measures.

In recent days, a Ukrainian drone strike hit Russia’s largest data center, owned by bank and technology company Sberbank. The strike came after Ukraine hit three data centers belonging to the tech giant Yandex, which is often referred to as “Russia’s Google.” After those attacks, Yandex’s traffic dropped 94%. Its users experienced heavy disruption to […]

The post Data centers in the line of fire of Ukraine war appeared first on Asia Times.